Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 494 F.3d 13 - United States v. Carpenter

United States v. Carpenter’s Empirical Analysis

494 F.3d 13 · 2007

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Simmons (2009), United States v. Cruz-Díaz (2008)

12 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

180200720102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Massachusetts District Court)

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 26 U.S.C. § 1031 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Berger v. United States · Green v. United States · Abney v. United States · Arizona v. Washington

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “provocative references to 'cashing in chips,' 'doubling down' and 'river boat gambler.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “used some permutation of the word 'gamble'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) [be] so conceptually distinct from other issues being litigated in the underlying action that an immediate appeal would neither disrupt the main action, nor threaten to deprive the appellate court of useful context which might be derived from subsequent developments in the litigation; (2) completely and conclusively resolve the collateral issue; (3) infringe rights which appellant could not effectively vindicate in an appeal after final judgment in the case; and (4) involve an important or unsettled legal issue, rather than merely challenge discretionary trial court rulings.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.